Only little is known about government research agencies, even in the field of science. Generally, they are taken to be government agencies whose research follows political decisions (cf. Lundgreen). They are, therefore, considered to be part of the field of science as well as that of government, a status which is taken to produce “structural problems”. These assumptions are verified by a relational analysis of three different views on what is considered “good performance” of these agencies: the ministerial view, the view of the governmental research agencies themselves, and the view of the scientific field. This approach allows to show the difference in concepts of “best practice” as well as in opinions held with regard to government tasks and scientific expertise. According to the ministerial view government research agencies are subordinate to the primacy of politics. Scientific standards are more or less considered to be fulfilled when the expertise reached stands the test of political debate. From the scientific point of view a basic requirement for “good performance” of government research agencies is “excellent research”; due to this priority of scientific criteria research done by government agencies does not represent a specific kind of research. From the government agencies’ perspective “best practice” depends on the (political) implementation of their research results; this is what they consider their specific feature.